22-05-2016, 06:08 AM
(This post was last modified: 22-05-2016, 06:39 AM by Albert Doyle.)
The Kennedy assassination is such an intrigue-laced event that any potential dye test of similarities in patterns is worth pursuing, even if wrong. I understand your being upset over someone speculating about a family member in a way that might present a false image to history. If I did so I apologize, however you should have a little patience since there are reasons to at least ponder such speculation that has paid off in other areas of the assassination. You should be a little more tolerant because the similarities between Trumbo, Walton, and Buchanan are close enough to merit speculation. Saying "So what?" is a little rash considering some such teleconnections have occurred before that have led to a greater understanding of the assassination. So it is not as reckless as you might feel, considering.
You have to understand being in France and having the background your father did made him an ideal source one way or the other. Isn't the fact he came out with one of the more direct and accurate books earliest prove that in itself? I'm not sure what we're arguing here. Leak or not your father was in an ideal placement to do this without any domestic US interference or the normal insider pressures some others experienced.
Walton met Bolshakov, also a known communist. This is in line with persons with known communist affiliation RFK was documented as reaching out to.
No, healthy speculation is the basis of all sound investigation. If I were investigating your father I might for instance speculate that he kept his communist sympathies and was working covertly for KGB in relating real time psychological warfare propaganda that contained a lot of correct information gathered by the Soviets. And I wouldn't apologize for it because it would be what any competent investigator would do if faced by these facts. It might have no merit whatsoever, but to object to the idea of this kind of speculation runs against all known forms of analysis of evidence. The police do it every day.
Case in point. I suggest you read more about this. You can find it on this website. RFK was murdered by CIA exactly because of the information he had gathered concerning the conspiracy behind his brother's death and his intention of bringing those who were guilty to justice. You are forgetting RFK sent a clear message to Bolshakov and Khrushchev that right wingers were responsible for his brother's death. If there was no dye pack connection to your father basically saying the same thing then I'm wrong. But it is no crime to speculate, seeing the circumstances. Oh, and RFK jr came out on the Charlie Rose show and said his father questioned the Warren Report.
I'm sorry but from what has already been revealed about the assassination and its cover up it would be very hard to describe it as an "unthrilling" event.
PS - I'm not sure you know that the Who Killed? precedent to a title has been used by authors like Fenton Bresler and his book Who Killed John Lennon? as an indicator of a book that exposes a government murder conspiracy. A tribute to your father most people probably don't realize.
.
You have to understand being in France and having the background your father did made him an ideal source one way or the other. Isn't the fact he came out with one of the more direct and accurate books earliest prove that in itself? I'm not sure what we're arguing here. Leak or not your father was in an ideal placement to do this without any domestic US interference or the normal insider pressures some others experienced.
Walton met Bolshakov, also a known communist. This is in line with persons with known communist affiliation RFK was documented as reaching out to.
No, healthy speculation is the basis of all sound investigation. If I were investigating your father I might for instance speculate that he kept his communist sympathies and was working covertly for KGB in relating real time psychological warfare propaganda that contained a lot of correct information gathered by the Soviets. And I wouldn't apologize for it because it would be what any competent investigator would do if faced by these facts. It might have no merit whatsoever, but to object to the idea of this kind of speculation runs against all known forms of analysis of evidence. The police do it every day.
Quote:I find it hard to believe that RFK had hard incriminating evidence without acting on it or, if it was insufficient in and of itself, at least keeping a record of it somewhere, if only for it to be pursued or revealed later in history.
Case in point. I suggest you read more about this. You can find it on this website. RFK was murdered by CIA exactly because of the information he had gathered concerning the conspiracy behind his brother's death and his intention of bringing those who were guilty to justice. You are forgetting RFK sent a clear message to Bolshakov and Khrushchev that right wingers were responsible for his brother's death. If there was no dye pack connection to your father basically saying the same thing then I'm wrong. But it is no crime to speculate, seeing the circumstances. Oh, and RFK jr came out on the Charlie Rose show and said his father questioned the Warren Report.
I'm sorry but from what has already been revealed about the assassination and its cover up it would be very hard to describe it as an "unthrilling" event.
PS - I'm not sure you know that the Who Killed? precedent to a title has been used by authors like Fenton Bresler and his book Who Killed John Lennon? as an indicator of a book that exposes a government murder conspiracy. A tribute to your father most people probably don't realize.
.